Title of Paper:

Writer:

Reviewer :

1. What are the major strengths of the paper? What do you like most about it?

2. Does the writer have a clear sense of purpose? What is it? Does the writer state it clearly or forecast the direction of the essay clearly enough early on?

3. Does the writer have a good sense of the audience for whom he or she is writing? What, if anything, does the writer need to do to define the audience more clearly?

4. What suggestions can you make about focus and/or the effectiveness of the organization? Are the topics the paper brings up adequately handled? Any places where more explicit cueing—transitions, summaries, topic sentences—would clarify the relationships between parts?

5. What would you like to know that the writer does not tell you? What things need to be developed further; where should there be more examples or details?

6. List two suggestions you can make that you think could improve the next draft.

General Comments to weave in: Does the paper conform to the assignment? In this case, did he or she have a clear judgement (thesis) with supporting reasons? Were the criteria appropriate? Were the counterarguments discussed? Should they have been? Too much summary? Not enough? Advice to reviewers: If you think something in the essay is not working well, say so, but be sure to support your criticisms with clear reasons, specific examples and, if possible, suggestions for improvement. Be honest. Be constructive. Give the feedback that you yourself would find most helpful.